The court established that the terms and conditions of a lease agreement, known to the parties at the time of execution, cannot be changed through the court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

JUDGMENT

Dr. B.R. Sarangi, J. - The petitioner, by means of this writ petition, seeks direction to the opposite parties to extend the lease period for 10 years or the maximum period as permissible under the Orissa Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2016 (for short 'OMMC Rules, 2016').

2. The factual matrix of the case, in brief, is that the petitioner was granted on lease Bholanugaon Stone Quarry, Ghasipura Tahasil in the district of Keonjhar for mining of stone for a term of five years from 2015-2020. Since then, the petitioner has been operating the said quarry in accordance with law and in full compliance with the provisions of the OMMC Rules, 2016 as well as mining plan. The requisite environmental clearance, consent to establish and consent to operate were granted after a delay of two years, and accordingly the lease period was further extended until 04.04.2022. The petitioner has invested significant sums of money and has even established a stone crusher in the region for processing of the quarry output in accordance with the norms prescribed by the competent authority. As per the OMMC Rules 2016, the period of mining lease for any specified minor minerals is 30 years and for quarry lease it is 10 years. The minimum period for any quarry lease is 5 years. The opposite parties granted the quarry lease only for the minimum period prescribed, which is arbitrary and unreasonable and does not take into account the investments made by the leaseholder as also the impact on the environment causes by such short lease periods and repeated change of leaseholder as well as mining plans. There being no rational nexus between the quarry lease period granted by the opposite parties and the objective sought to be achieved by the OMMC Rules, 2016, such action of the opposite parties is manifestly arbitrary and is liable to be set aside. It is further averred in the writ petition that the previous rules, i.e., Orissa Minor Minerals Concessions Rules, 2004 (for short 'OMMC Rules, 2004') provided for grant of mining lease for a maximum period of 30 years and a minimum period of twenty years for all minor minerals and there was no categorization for specified and non- specified minor minerals. Therefore, the action of opposite parties in granting the quarry lease for only five years is completely non-application of mind and mechanical decision making. There is no economic sense for granting of leases for a period of only five years. All leaseholders invest considerable amount of money for operation and establishment of the quarries and lease period of five years is not adequate enough to realize the true potential from the quarry. A longer quarry lease period permits a more systematic and sustainable mining process and also facilitates proper implementation of the mining plan as well as supports thorough rehabilitation of the quarry lease area to negate the adverse environmental impact caused by the mining. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition seeking for extension of quarry lease period from five years to ten years.

3. Mr. S. Palit, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that pursuant to the auction notice issued by the authority, the petitioner participated in the proceeding for grant of lease in respect of the stone quarry under consideration and got selected. As a consequence thereof, the petitioner executed quarry lease agreement in the prescribed Form-N as per Rule-27(13) of OMMC Rules, 2016 for a period of five years. It is contended that the said lease period should be extended for a period of 10 years in the facts and circumstances of the case. The same having not been extended by the authority, the petitioner has approached this Court by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India. To substantiate his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of the apex Court in the case of Deepak Kumar and others v. State of Haryana and oth